On the Topic of Primitivism

then do us a favour and delete yours

Because while anprimism appeals to the frustrated and half-suppressed male power fantasies of the emasculated middle-class intellectual male, even the most alienated middle-class woman understands that anprimistan would mean a sharp reduction in her ability to survive childbirth.

I remember finding a female anprim on tumblr years ago she was a tranny too which is doubly hilarious so there's that

Female (male) or actual trans female.

Its the ultimate form of reactionarism. They want to go back to the "good old times" but that time isnt 19th century but stone age. The ideology collapses when a more technologically advanced civilization conquers them like how Europeans conquered America.

women thrive off capital economy

you mean "namaste" type women?

want me to make a bigger meme?

there ya go. Far Cry Primal but IRL.

Uranium. Zero carbon emissions, safest form of power generation per gigawatt hour, and we have enough to last thousands of years, ample time to identify a new form of energy production.

-Little no to period relief, either by avoiding it like birth control, or helping it along via pain relievers and modern sanitation
-Birth will have a much more significant chance of death
-No government institutions and programs guaranteeing them rights as equal to men

Yeah honestly I think anprim is only appealing to left wing guys because it's essentially the restoration of sort of soft patriarchy.

Lol. There's only several decades of economically viable uranium reserves remaining, and that's with the total global energy slice of nuclear being a minority. Also, the industry is not economically viable and only exists due to subsidies. Nor can the industry handle the construction of new reactors anyway, Westinghouse went bankrupt recently trying to build just two new nuke plants. More importantly, it only produces electricity, whereas petroleum used for many other critical things that industrial society depends on, like pharmaceuticals, pesticides/herbicides, plastics, and transport sectors that will never be electrified like aviation, maritime shipping, and rail.

And before you ask, commercial fusion isn't going to be economically viable:
thebulletin.org/fusion-reactors-not-what-they’re-cracked-be10699

But there are. And they're all TERFS. Look up deep green resistance.

Except primitive societies were more, not less egalitarian.

How is it "egalitarian" when guys don't have to deal with childbirth or periods? And that's not even getting into the physical differences between the sexes (most importantly those relating to muscle mass). Like they said it's a soft patriarchy which is why leftist bros tend to gravitate toward it.
Industrial society is best society deal with it.

Modern society as it currently is cannot run on nuclear power. The large machinery used in modern farming can only run on diesel and gasoline. The large trucks and ships used to transport only run on diesel and gasoline. We would need batteries and electric engines strong enough to handle these jobs, or see a substantial reduction in our agricultural sector, and in the ability to transport food and goods across the globe, and even across a country.

And no, nuclear engines only work with enough cooling fluids. That is why nuclear submarines work, but a nuclear truck would not.

These three posts have the right of it. Currently we are extremely reliant on oil because it is extremely polyvalent: we need it for building materials (tar, asphalt), plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, various types of highly portable fuel (good luck flying without kerosene), and a whole host of chemical applications most people don't even think of like food additives (various artificial food colorants, flavorings and aroma's), the liquid crystals in an LCD display, and so on. If we want to keep our current level of "stuff", we have to radically cut back on simply burning this extremely useful substance for on-the-ground locomotion and power generation.
This would involve switching to renewable and massive storage (not just batteries, but also artificial lakes that you can run through a damn when you need it) for electricity, and continuing to explore ways to synthesize things like bioplastics out of regular plant matter using among other things GMO's. But most of all, stop simply burning this great gift of nature.

Switching to renewables isn't even conceivably on the table to replace the CMO we use today, let alone the projected demand into the future, let alone how many more CMOs it would take to develop the third world and the growth they would have.

Hydro storage is very situational and doesn't give as much energy back as you put in. Batteries are a joke since they only provide 1 hour of storage. This includes the latest technology Tesla batteries that the Australian grid just bought.

Oh, and wind energy will keep giving us less energy over time:

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/11/wind-energy-is-supposed-to-fight-climate-change-but-climate-change-is-fighting-back/?utm_term=.d96ad8bfd579

The idea is essentially that there can't be any societal hierarchy if there is no society to begin with.
Anarcho-primitivism is a solution to the defects of modern society in the same sense that euthanasia can cure any disease.

It doesn't even keep into account that both solar panels and wind mills are produced using oil.

And they only have a 20 year life span for wind and 30 for PV. Wind also needs oil and lubricants. Exxon has a wind industry page.

This is actually achievable if there was the political will to do so.

anything anti-modernity is spooked to hell and back, humans are the cause of the extinction but also the only potential hope for the creation of new ecosystems out of the ashes of the old and genetic engineering

Not at all. Nuclear has low scalability and has huge lead times for each plant you want to build. They also require tons of special materials and alloys to make. And even if we had all the plants built, we'd run out of economically viable uranium before their 40-50 year lifespans are over, making them an even less economically attractive investment.

this is idealist and volutarist while primitivism is inherently missanthropic

ecological collapse is inevitable

peak oil was 45 years ago, this planet has oil for maximum 30 years, if we switch to nuclear energy complete earth's supply of radioactive ellements would be spent in less than 20 years to maintain current production of electric energy. first ozone hole, back in eightees, was made by freon released after ww2, freon takes around 35 years in order to reach ozone layer…

We should fully use remaining earth's ressurces to free ourselves from any form of work and any form of scarcity until we burn away with rest of the planet

Except this is bullshit, with present day technology we can extract uranium from sea water for about twice the cost of mining it from the ground (this is an insignificant difference given that fuel costs account for a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear energy). Combining this with breeder reactors would allow for thousands of years of energy at current usage. And that's without padding it out with thorium.

Wrong. Nuclear "waste" rods taken out of reactors are still over 95% pure U235 and probably much higher purity. They're then buried literally because it's illegal to reprocess them, something that takes less than one ten thousandth of the energy it takes to purify and process it the first time.

This isn't getting into the fact that we also have absolute shittons of U-238 "depleted" uranium which is perfectly usable fuel for breeder reactors, that make Pu-239 which is then usable as even more fuel.

We are sitting on so much god damn uranium that we could power ourselves on nothing but uranium for tens of thousands of years. We're not allowed to use it because waaaaah it's badwrong to reprocess nuclear fuel (says the oil and coal industries)

I was specifically vague because that would be the best solution. It was also somewhat related to what would have to be done under socialism, which is a voluntarist society, therefore negating your criticism of it. It would also be implied that if there is no oil, then we obviously can't use it.

If we go for a more realistic and contemporary outlook. Capitalism will remain strong until production cannot be expanded any further. And while many people are talking about running out of oil. The real issue is not having enough oil for further capitalist expansion. When that happens the economy will turn sour real fast. I wouldn't doubt that it would be 1930's level of shitshow without any feasible way out. The strongest nations would likely consider turning into a plunder economy. This is if batteries cannot manage to replace the necessity for a dense energy source (which is very likely). Even then any company reliant on oil for their products (not energy) will go bankrupt messing up the economy regardless.

A result will be a clear cut answer if nuclear power can truly replace oil. Because I am not sure if the shills or the slanderers are correct about the feasibility of nuclear power. Either way, society will have to change drastically sending any country without a proper power grid back to the stone age.

source?

meat or other precious food with them. The alpha male does the same thing, and is compelled to spend more time and effort cultivating others than subordinate males bother doing. Cooperation thus becomes the key to dominance.

Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History

Peak Oil is reffered to 70s oil crisis when Usa couldn't export oil or even satisfy it's own needs but needed to start importing it.

You really thing that capitalistic logistic which is based on transportational sector won't get into a fucking collapse as oil becomes more rare and rare ?
Production and distribution units are extremlly conected and extremlly vulnerable, one logistical choking point if it's disabled can fuck up all production and distribution units directly and indirectly dependant of that logistic line.
You think that humanity could endure the collapse of capitalist logistics and start building it's eco-socialism whatever in earth left in ruins without adecvate resources ? We are all going to die much before we get chance to build something from ruins of global ecological dissaster

The depletion of oil isn't going to happen overnight, and there are alternatives to oil: natural gas for starters, which is far more abundant than oil, then there's coal gas, and finally synthetic fuel (though this obviously needs a power source to produce, such as nuclear power). Then there's batteries, which seems to be the direction that capitalism is moving towards anyway. Even if all this turns out to be more expensive than oil, and slow to implement, that will simply mean a slow decent into poverty as prices rise rather than some kind of catastrophic collapse. It's also worth remembering that capitalism existed prior to oil, albeit in a much shittier form. I've never understood why some people think that the collapse of modern industry means the end of capitalism, even if 90% of us staved to death capital would go on, with the bourgeoisie presiding over the ruins (and making profit as usual). If anything, such a catastrophe would strengthen capital as the destruction of value on such a scale would return the rate of profit to early 19th century levels.

yes, there are some. i consider myself one
well, i already didn't have that much of a postive view of technology, then i kinda got memed into reading ted kaczynskis books and went down the rabbit hole from there. i am looking for more books on it at the moment and think i am going to read walden soon
he is a bit too politcal correct but he is still fine and an important voice
i can't escape tech, i am depended on it for school and work. my dream is to work for some years and then move into the woods, still i can't really go back and will always be affected/effected by the industrial society so i guess i am pretty nihilistic on that point. i don't really see any hope in a real anprim movment..not even a neoluddite movment

there are, not many but is not a big movment either like there arent that many women the altright or some socialist organzation that small. i dont know why it is that way, in my experience.
i am more suprised when i find someone who is trans that is anprim or prim but there are a few. i know of two, well one of them kinda gone more in a eco fascism direction.

>>>/anarchy/

I dunno, sounds pretty spooky to me.

dead board, Holla Forums is for both anarchists and communists

Nope. Anarchy is about freedom. The farther you move to the left the more difficult it becomes to have a society without a government and vice versa. It's a logarithmic function with centrists being (0,0) and communists being at infinity. Ancaps being at negative infinity.

anprim are the only anarchism that work

Holla Forums is for the left, anprims are reactionary and should in no way be regarded as left wing. GTFO.

You're literally retarded, anarchism has been regarded as leftist since its inception the 19th century, it was only in the late 20th century that a bunch of dumbfuck lolberts tried to rebrand anarchism as a far right ideology.

Even as a metaphor, this is retarded.

Anprim works for a short time, but it does work (in small groups of people)

It's not the scholars that define a word, it's the people that use it.

Except it was literally the intentional attempt of several "ancap" professors to steal the word "anarchism" and "libertarian" for their own use.

anprims are neither left nor rightwing

no, since we would have to turn the whole society back. it would work for many years

they are diffrent forms of anarchism, but how can you be free with technology?

I find some of their arguments convincing.

How do you plan on making an anprim society, by the way? What stops some smart guy from surviving this situation and educating a whole bunch of people?

There's no going back to industrialization once it's gone. All the easy to get to natural resources are burned up. Destroy modern crops and livestock, and it would take thousands of years to even get agriculture back.

pretty much this, besides the idea is also that we dont want to go back since its better than modern life

oh yeah and btw i dont have a hope in a anti tech revolution. i kinda have accepted our fate but i still hate people who activly are going towards thaat goal

Does that not seem like an insurmountable goal? Destroying all crops will take at least two crop growing cycles, if not more. Killing all livestock seems even more difficult with farmers having guns and all.
Either way, humanity will still survive. So long as there are plants or animals at all humanity will survive, eventually cultivating the plant and making more animals to eat. So long as there is a smart human to pass down their knowledge, humanity will relapse soon enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=3Gvrt15v6Mc

Thoughts on pentti linkola?

Anprims using a computer

Fags

where do you live lol

It can all be done if we had a command economy. The problem is literally and only capitalism.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA ORGINALIO

i dont like him, on of the few primitivist writers i dont like

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island

Are these people the ultimate anprims?

Zerzan talked with ADAM LANZA (sandy hook shooter) on his radio show once

youtube.com/watch?v=lVlG3qMLFwg

That's pretty eerie shit lol

...

Wouldn't the islanders be the truly normal ones though?

makes you think

A MtF doesn't need to worry about the struggles of childbirth that biological women do.